Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader noted a nice piece discussing 12 laws bloggers need to know which includes explanations of matters including domain name trademarks, deep linking, fair use of thumbnails and so on. It's worth a read for most anyone who puts words on this here interweb.

CONSIDER that moderating your message boards for federal criminal behavior and intellectual property infringements is not just an important way to keep on the right side of the law, it also sets the tone for the type of content that is permissible on your site and will help foster a friendly and collegial environment.

i know you're aiming for +1 Funny (and i think you hit it), but that's not a copyright violation issue. the argument is that the key is a component of a circumvention device, and therefore distribution violates the DMCA. they're not arguing that the hex number is copyrighted.it's still stupid, but let's be clear about the nature of the stupidity.

Indeed. The anonymous coward who posted as the GGP never stated that ignorance was a defence. Indeed, conscious and wilful violation of certain laws can bring even greater penalties.The same holds in many countries/jurisdictions in civil law in general, beyond just patent law; often, if you're made aware that you're violating a legal agreement, or breaching your duty, the penalties may be heightened if you continue in the breach/violations.

Right. That's why they make far too many laws for one person (much less every person) to know them all and understand them. If you start digging into the law, you quickly realize that nearly everybody over the age of 21 is a criminal. It's virtually impossible to live without breaking at least one law. Especially when you are kept ignorant of what those laws are.

As a blogger (on hiatus) who could be considered "professional" (meaning part of my income comes from my blogging or my business helping businesses blog), I am glad that the anarchy of the blogging market is quickly making many of these laws impossible to enforce. For those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind. I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

Here's why most of this is unimportant, based on the sheer volume of blogging and the growth rate it will see from now until forever:

1. Whether to Disclose Paid Posts

A blogger who doesn't disclose paid posts will be called out on it and lose their customer base. The FTC should have nothing to do with this -- it happens naturally already.

2. Is Deep Linking Legal

The sheer volume of bloggers who deep-link is overwhelming. If someone "catches you" and thinks you are breaking a law, the cost to fight it is excessive. Instead of hitting you with a lawsuit, you'll get a cease and desist, at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it. Each deep-link probably has a different "owner/author," so let them manage their own inept use of force.

3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails

see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.

4. Laws that Protect You From Stolen Content

Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution. All my writings are instantly public domain, because it helps my business by bringing my words to a larger audience. I even allow people to redistribute "as their own" with no reference to me. Why? It still increases the marketbase, and eventually that increases my audience potential. As to the law, see #2 and #3.

5. Domain Name Trademark Issues

I rely more on Google, Yahoo and Microsoft searches than on people knowing my domain name. Some of my most profitable blogs have the absolute worst domain names with impossible to remember subdomains. They're popular because of "StumbleUpon" and have good ranking in the search engines. I care little about the domain name, and am just as likely to register gobbledy-gook names.

6. Handling Private Data About Your Readers

Simple solution -- keep nothing. I don't need to know anything more about my readers than their IP address (to see if they're returning) and maybe some simple info that their browser gives me info on (operating system, web browser version, etc). The rest is worthless to me, I don't resell data, nor would I want to spend the time doing so.

7. Who Owns User-Developed Content and Can You Delete It

Who cares? Like #2, if a user posts something and asks me to delete it (like a cease and desist), I will. Big deal.

8. The Duty to Monitor Your Blog Comments, and Liability

Again, if someone has a problem with what I write, or what someone else writes, I'll nuke the problem topic if I feel I am lawsuit-worthy. The cost to go after millions of writers is enormous, and probably worthless.

9. Basic Tax Law Issues in Blogging

I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant. Deal with it. Also keep receipts for EVERYTHING you buy that is blogger-based (laptop, internet connection, web hosting, etc). Offset it.

10. Limited Liability Laws and Incorporating

That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee, because it reduces my ability to provide tax write-offs and deductions.

I believe in [property rights for] real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

This is a subtle but significant leap a lot of people don't notice. (Think Fifth-Axiom-ish.) The information *itself* has infinite supply; the good of excluding people from it, does not. My desire not to have my writings infintiely copied conflicts with your desire to copy them. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, GET THAT CURSOR AWAY FROM THE REPLY BUTTON. Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.

I was being a tad bit obnoxious here, but my point stands -- e-mail notification of updates for any site will slowly go the way of the do-do (or the animated GIF, if you will). I've even introduced my luddite father to RSS feeds, and he uses them now that he knows to look for them. More bloggers (and any site that updates regularly) should be moving to promote RSS feeds over e-mail notifications or updates.

Writers will make their money on subscriptions (and advertising) for those who appreciate the writing, rather than writing a book once and hoping it sells enough over years (and is quickly outdated).

It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.

Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income.

Huh? I'm sure that 99% of professionals artists would laugh at you as they work continuously just

It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.

Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breakin

Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breaking the law, or altruism to support the author. That being said, I have years of experience with print newsletters I wrote and published, and I always told my subscribers to freely copy the newsletter for friends or family. Guess what happened? Friends and family subscribed for the express reason that they wanted to get a copy to read rather than wait for a copy or search for one.

My public blogs are free, my private e-newsletters are not, even though I allow people to forward them to others (and many do). My reader base increases still, even though I freely let people share all my writings, even republish them as their own.

There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale. All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version when a subscription only page is reached.

There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale.

True, but the article was about blogging, and MOST bloggers will only reach a limited supportive market.

All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version wh

I'm going to pick a nit.The Chinese violins are for the most part easily tagged as such once you get at or above the intermediate/advanced student grades. Now, the value of the Chinese units is enormous, but the quality is not. I have two violins(one American of German labor, one advanced student Chinese), and one viola(Chinese), and have had the opportunity to play a very fine German unit. The tone of the Chinese instruments is not as rich in the base notes where the individual instruments can show a lo

When you say "better", I assume you mean "better as per an internal consensus of the musical elite and indistinguishable to anyone else"?

Don't mean to sound bitter or anything, it's just that there was the whole thing with Joshua Bell playing on the subway. I think if you have to tell someone something is good for them to appreciate it, it's not really good. Placebo principle and all.

I mean better in richness of bass notes, and in "fit and finish" as bot my Chinese violins show imperfections that are not present on German or American instruments (and honestly inexcusable) such as bumps and pits in the lacquer, divots in the wood that are filled with putty and then lacquered over. Little things. Like I said, they are an excellent value, but they are by no means yet equal to the high end German or American instruments.

Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income.... Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."

Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?

Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?

For me, money and time are the same thing, and don't differ at all. Money is merely a storage of time that can be redeemed to save you time in the future. Instead of mowing your own lawn (let's say it would take you 1 hour), you can redeem stored time (money) to

I see the appreciation of depreciation of gold and all commodities for that matter to not be a change in the values of those commodities, after all the value of a pound of butter does not change to the person making or eating it, but changes in the value of currency. In my perfect world, there would be a fixed supply of currency pegged to the population. Currency should serve ONLY as a means to transport good effectively in society, there is absolutely no reason that the quantity of currency in circulation

There is a very small distance from a work being useful to users while being worth something to the creator and being worthless to the creator while still being useful to the same users. Something that is useful to many people yet requires no effort to obtain (something that is copied free of charge for example,) is seing as worthless. It has its uses but is worthless because it requires no effort and if there is an equivalent distribution channel that requires more effort to get this 'worthless/valuable'

Good job, dada. I'm also anti-copyright and I've found that there are useful alternatives to the traditional model of intellectual property. When I sell my work, I sell it entirely. I even allow my customers to put their own name on it, although I warn them that it will probably lower the value.It's been a long time since the laws of intellectual property have encouraged innovation OR protected the creative people. Now it's just another way to marginalize the people who actually do the work and enrich t

Not. Who uses RSS when I have Google News that I have customized for my interests.From its beginning I have always criticized RSS for only including a short blurb and a link. I would rather have the whole article in an RSS feed. I dont, and so I dont.

I use RSS feeds FROM Google News to inform me of news updates on topics I follow. I actually have about 500 RSS feeds subscribed to from Google News alone. I have a top 50 topics that never get purged, I have 250 or so topics that get purged every other day,

RSS feeds can and often do include the entire article in the feed... it's just a matter of how the content provider has set it up. Some of my sites actually offer several flavors of the same RSS feed so that readers can choose the amount of content they see.

For instance they could get summaries only, or whole articles, or whole articles+user comments, and I even offer topical filters so if they want they can just get the particular type of content they're interested in.

Depends. Like when I set up my Web Comics Nation account back a while ago, I found I was able to set whether the "Subscribe to Comic" button would supply the whole comic page or just the comic. I imagine that other services and RSS feeds have similar options.

I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

Books, articles, news reports and blogs don't write themselves, and the last time I checked, there was a finite number of hours in a day. Thus I think it's easy to conclude that that intellectual property that people create is NOT in infinite supply.

Then the content you produce has as its "value" the number of hours you spent on them. But hours != money. There is no direct translation that goes from a concrete quantity (hours, energy, materials etc.) to a given quantity of money. This means that, whatever you do, its monetary value is only what others are willing to pay for it, not a single dime more. If they're willing to pay $0, it's worth $0, and that's it. Then, how much is your intellectual production worth? Since anything that can become infinite

Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution.

Then why hasn't this happened already in the fields of recorded music and motion pictures? The vast majority of people still prefer recordings published by the Big Four (Sony/BMG, UMG, WMG, EMI) and movies published by the Big Six (Sony/MGM/Weinstein, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Warner, Universal) or Lionsgate to works published by smaller firms. Part of this has to do with the financial ability of these companies to promote their works through advertising.

I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant.

If you received a 1099C from someone, that means you welched on a debt to them and they wrote off the debt as uncollectable -- the 1099C shows that debt writeoff, which you need to claim as incme on your taxes.

That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee

Ugh, it almost seems like you have to jump through hoops now just to simply post your own thoughts. Set up an LLC, journalism shield laws, terms of use, etc etc. Why can nothing ever be simple and straightforward?

For my own blog, I'm simply ignoring all of this and just doing what feels right. I live in Canada, so chances are anyone whom I piss off will not sue me and deal with international litigation to get at my scant assets.

And those rules... how are they different for other things in life? You don't copy images in a blog, but don't do it for other things either... Don't claim that you are objective if being paid in a blog. Don't do it in your site or your book either... These are normal ethical rules for life that we shouldn't even NEED to explain to anyone.

I RTFA... it simply restates the bleeding obvious. In a nutshell:1. Don't steal. This includes trademarks, images, links, pay your taxes, and the other "gray" areas.2. You are responsible for your content. Even the comments. And don't count on being counted as a journalist.

Most importantly, "To clarify further, you may not rely upon this information as legal advice, nor as a recommendation or endorsement of any particular legal understanding, and you should instead regard this article as intended for entertainment purposes only."

Kind of like the universal laws of physics. Here are the laws every blogger should know:

1. Nobody wants to read your blog.2. 95% of bloggers are illiterate.3. Yes, the top blog spam garbage makes money (digg etc.) But do not quit your day job because, honey, you ain't gonna make no money. The days when "AllAdvantage" paid you to surf your computer are over.

If your panties are all wet for blogspam, then go read Roland's technology trends or digg.com

> Try to avoid being posted on slashdot, unless you have a profesional grade server capable of handling> ten thousand something simultaineous hits on your site.

Depends. It appears that it isn't the web server or internet connection that fail in a typical slashdotting, it is the database server. Static content is the best defense against slashdot or any other flash mob event. Either avoid the temptation to go with dynamic content in the first place or have a way to switch into overflow mode when the load gets too heavy for your database server to cope.

I happened to take a full slash assault on my workplace server while I was out of town and never lost the ability to get in remotely, the server stayed available and work continued. The webserver was a lowly dual proc Pentium II fed from a single T1. The key was all of the content was hand generated static html.

Even CNN goes to a static homepage when a major news event happens. If it is big enough they disable everything else. If they can't buy enough iron to serve dynamic content during a surge YOU can't either. To not design around it is illogical.

I'm not here to pick a fight, but I do want to challenge two of your points.

1. Untrue. "Nobody" implies 100%. It would be fair to say most people don't care about your blog. Bloggers (especially the online journal-keepers, not the true web-loggers) may have a few fans or friends who read regularly, but most people won't know they exist. Many families are starting to use blogs to replace those once-a-year newsletters.

2. Illiterate? Based on what critera? You've just proved that old saying that says

My blog ( http://johnbokma.com/ [johnbokma.com] ) has over 16,000 daily visitors and makes some nice money. So there go 2 out of 3 wrong. You might be right with 2 because English is not my native language. On the other hand a lot of people seem to be very happy with my Apache on XP tutorial.

Sometimes I edit people's comments for very innocent reasons, some include : html markup somehow made it in, correcting a spelling error, fixing a broken link. It never dawned on me to have a terms of service that says I can and will edit comments as needed.

I'm really not worried about it, but if patent trolls exist, there's a good chance that you-edited-my-comment-so-ill-sue-you'ers also exist.

"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it."
So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money?
I agreed with him a little up till this point. The patent and copyright system is a bit borked, but what he suggests is just wrong. *shakes head*

"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it." So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money?

Quit being dense. The author has assumed that deep-linking is a perfectly moral action, but some webmasters will disagree and will endeavor to stop you. Therefore the reasons to not do it involve avoiding negative consequences like lawsuits, not

So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money?
I agreed with him a little up till this point. The patent and copyright system is a bit borked, but what he suggests is just wrong. *shakes head*

Isn't that the youtube and youtube clone business model?

1. Create a safe harbor web 2.0 site.
2. Allow users to post media they do not own.
3. Collect ad revenue.
4. Take down content after the C&D letter arrives knowing that your users are posting faster than the C&D's can ship.
5. Profit!

Then bring it on! [wordpress.com]. The article was more about the things that you do that will get you into trouble with the law. Getting your webpage Slashdotted doesn't really rank very high on the author's list of priorities.

I was a bit confused about his views on deep linking. He must have had over 50 links in that article---all of them direct links.

Given that if it goes to court it'll be the blogger that's called before the bench, it's the blogger's location. The server's location only matters in so far as it may determine whether or not the ISP/hosting service respond to a take-down notice or request for customer information.If you start posting illegal material, don't think that the fact that the machine your blog is on is hosted overseas is going to save you even if it's legal there. *You* are posting the material, *you* are liable if that material

#1. Nobody really gives a rat's ass about your diary no matter how much you try to wrap it in puffed up laws and supposed ethics.

Okay, so this is over the top and I admit it. But has anyone else had their fill of blogs regurgitating other blogs, droning on about their day or wrapping interesting articles in a layer of nonsense that the reader is expected to care about on the way to the *actual* content (c.f. www.digg.com)?

I cruise through ars technica a couple of times a week - there are usually a coup

Charming as it is to debate different laws, they're only of merit if both sides can afford to go to court.

Here's the quick version of the U.S. (civil) legal system:

Party A doesn't like something party B does.

1. Party A threatens (usually via a Cease And Desist)

2. If party B can't afford a lawsuit, they probably cave unless they're pretty sure of 3. in which case they call party A's bluff and go on to 3. anyway.

3. If party A can't afford the lawsuit, after having their bluff called, they probably cave. If they think B is bluffing, they repeat 2-3 a few more times.

4. In the rare event that both sides refuse to back down from their bluffs, it goes to court where...

5. Repeat steps 2-3 as out of court settlements. Far more money than simply sending a cease and desist letter gets involved here so most people try to get out during 2-3.

6. Maybe, just maybe, it comes down to the legal merits. Even then, it may well not end up decided on so much as reach an out of court settlement based on the likelihood of losing vs. cost of doing so rather than actual legal right/wrong.

The moral of the story is that laws are all well and good but 99% of these things come down to who has the money to fight this for longer than the other guy - they win. Sad, but also true.